CA Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Decision On Marriage Equality

Source: The Associated Press

California's highest court Wednesday refused to stay its decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state, clearing the final hurdle for gay couples to start tying the knot this month.

Conservative religious and legal groups had asked the California Supreme Court to stop its May 15 order requiring state and local officials to sanction same-sex unions from becoming effective until voters have the chance to consider the issue in November. The justices' decisions typically become final after 30 days.

An initiative to ban gay marriage has qualified for the Nov. 4 ballot. Its passage would overrule the court's decision by amending the state constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

In arguing for a delay, the amendment's sponsors predicted chaos if couples married in the next few months, only to have the practice halted at the ballot box.

The four justices who denied the stay request were the same judges who joined in the majority opinion that found withholding marriage from same-sex couples constituted discrimination. The three dissenting justices said they thought a hearing on whether the stay should be granted was warranted.

The majority did not elaborate on its reasons for denying the stay, but simply issued a one-page order saying its original ruling on marriage would be final at 5 p.m. on June 16.

Wednesday's denial clears the way for gay couples in the nation's most populous state to get married starting June 17, when state officials have said counties must start issuing new gender-neutral marriage licenses.

Anti Marriage Equality Amendment Qualifies For November Ballot

Source: AP via Yahoo! News:

An initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in California has qualified for the November ballot, the Secretary of State announced Monday.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names for it to be put to voters.

The measure would amend the state constitution to "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

If approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4, the amendment would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. It is similar to gay marriage bans that have been adopted in 26 other states.

—SNIP—

If the marriages proceed during the next five months, it is unclear whether they would be nullified if the amendment passes. Some legal scholars have said the state Supreme Court might get called on again to settle that question.

Kate Kendell, executive director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, said gay marriage advocates have already launched a campaign to defeat the measure.

"There is just so much at stake, now, in terms of what kind of state we are going to live in and what values we are going to uphold," Kendell said.

To qualify for the ballot, the measure needed 694,354 petition signatures, an amount equal to 8 percent of the votes cast during the last governor's race.

Proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in late April, and county clerks determined the measure qualified by verifying the validity of 3 percent of the signatures they received, according to Bowen.

Recent polls have found California voters are about evenly split on whether gay couples should be allowed to marry.

State Says Marriages Can Start June 17

California counties can issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples beginning June 17, the state said in a directive issued Wednesday. The state Office of Vital Records said it chose June 17 because the state Supreme Court has until the close of business on June 16 to decide whether to grant a stay of its May 15 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

Gay rights advocates and some clerks initially thought couples would be able to wed as early as Saturday, June 14 — exactly 30 days after the court's ruling, but a group opposed to marriage equality has asked the court to stay its decision until after the November election. Voters are likely to face a ballot initiative that would once again define marriage as a union between a man and a woman to overrule the Supreme Court.

Under the Supreme Court's regular rules of procedure, justices have until the end of the day on June 16 to rule on the stay request. Lawyers involved in the marriage case have said previously the court could grant itself an extra 60 days to consider the stay.

Source: Associated Press

CA Supreme Court Affirms Marriage Equality

From Yahoo! News:

In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot. Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in striking down the ban.

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted the monthlong wedding march that took place when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the doors of City Hall to same-sex marriages.

The challenge for gay rights advocates, however, is not over. A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning same-sex marriage in the state constitution. The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court's decision.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.

The conservative Alliance Defense Fund says it plans to ask the justices for a stay of their decision until after the fall election, said Glen Lavey, senior counsel for the group.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would've granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a news release that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

Proposition 22, which strengthened the state's 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," passed with 61% of the vote.

The Supreme Court struck down both statutes with its sweeping opinion Thursday.

Additional Resources:

Supreme Court Decision

ACLU
Equality California
Lambda Legal

CNN
Fox News
MSNBC

State Supreme Court Hears Marriage Equality Arguments

See full article at the San Francisco Chronicle. More info on this subject can be found at The Bilerico Project.

Marisa Lagos, John Coté, Chronicle Staff Writers

The California Supreme Court peppered both sides of the same-sex marriage debate with questions (Tuesday) in a 3½-hour hearing into whether the state law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman is constitutional.

The hearing dealt with challenges to the law filed by nearly two dozen same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco, which entered the case after the court invalidated an order by Mayor Gavin Newsom that allowed nearly 4,000 same-sex couples to marry in 2004.

The plaintiffs argue that the California Constitution protects the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Those arguing to keep the law included the state of California, which says the definition of marriage is so deeply engrained in law that only the Legislature or voters have the power to change it, and conservative religious groups, which argue that marriage is for procreation. They point to domestic partnership laws as proof that same-sex couples are not being discriminated against.

The justices spent a little over 90 minutes during the hearing in San Francisco questioning three attorneys for the plaintiffs, then moved on to the opponents of changing the state law. Justice Joyce Kennard immediately asked Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger, representing the state of California, why the state's arguments differ from those of their co-defendants, who focused in written arguments on procreation. Krueger said the differences don't weaken the opponents' position, and urged the court to look at tradition.

—SNIP—

Lawyers for the plaintiffs have pointed to the court's 1948 decision striking down California's ban on interracial marriage, and have compared domestic partnership to "separate but equal" segregation. The 1948 ruling, the first of its kind by any state's high court, recognized a "right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice."

The justices honed in on that case during their questioning of Krueger, asking whether the state believes "separate is equal here" and whether animus against gays and lesbians is intrinsic in the state law. "What distinguishes this is that (for interracial couples) there was marriage and there was nothing," Krueger said. "Racial discrimination had been put on marriage for no reason other white supremacy." Krueger and other attorneys arguing to preserve the state law said gays and lesbians have never been defined by any high court as a group that is guaranteed equal protection under the law.

Krueger said plaintiffs in the same-sex case "talk about domestic partnership as if it's schoolhouse segregation. ... Yes, same-sex couples aren't allowed to marry under our laws, but that is not the same type of exclusion. ... Here there is equality."

Attorneys for the conservative groups argued that the court should not have a role in defining marriage. They pointed to Proposition 22, passed by voters in 2000, which barred the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed outside California. Glenn Lavy, an attorney for the Prop. 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, called the initiative process the "ultimate expression of democracy."

—SNIP—

"If procreation is a fundamental purpose of marriage, then the next inquiry would be should infertile individuals be prohibited from entering in to a marriage relationship? " Kennard asked.

"No, your honor ... it would violate the right of privacy to make that inquiry," Lavy said.

In her arguments, San Francisco Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart insisted that granting same-sex couples the right to enter into domestic partnerships or civil unions was not the same thing as allowing them to marry.

—SNIP—

The Supreme Court has 90 days to make a decision on the case.

E-mail the writers at mlagos@sfchronicle.com and jcote@sfchronicle.com.

California Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Arguments March 4

The California Supreme Court announced that it will hear oral arguments on March 4 in the marriage cases challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage.

Fifteen same-sex couples, Equality California, and Our Family Coalition will be represented at oral arguments by Shannon Price Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is serving as co-counsel with Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, Heller Ehrman LLP and the Law Office of David C. Codell.

The marriage cases were filed in March, 2004. San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard A. Kramer ruled that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage violates the California Constitution. In a 2-1 vote, the California Court of Appeal reversed Judge Kramer’s ruling. Shortly after the Court of Appeal’s decision, the California Supreme Court granted review of the cases in order to consider the constitutional questions itself.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger highlighted that the California Supreme Court should decide the constitutional questions posed by the marriage statutes when he vetoed two measures passed by the California Legislature in 2005 and 2007 that would have permitted same-sex couples to marry.

The marriage cases are among the most heavily briefed cases in the history of the California Supreme Court. It typically issues its decisions within 90 days following oral arguments.

2008 marks the 60th anniversary of the California Supreme Court’s historic 1948 ruling that found it unconstitutional for the state to restrict access to marriage based on the race of the spouses. That ruling was the first of its kind in the nation’s history, and is now the law of the land across the country. The California NAACP, NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., and Howard Law School Civil Rights Clinic have urged the court to apply the reasoning from its 1948 decision to the present marriage cases.

Info courtesy of EQCA, NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU.